<p>I also generally agree with the idea of diminishing returns on repeated SAT tests. The exception I can think of is the student who cannot do as well as possible because of test anxiety. Kids like this might benefit from a retake to show what they really can do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Someone who does a lot of math or writes lot of short essays for school is more prepped <a href="Curious">/quote</a></p>
<p>Well, yes and no. Someone who is doing a lot of Calculus or someone who is doing a lot of Algebra? They are both doing a lot of math. Even in this example, the brighter kid will be doing Calculus sooner, and be further ahead in math. However, the Math section of the SAT doesn't test anything anywhere near as advanced as Calculus. So, in some ways, the kids in the lower level math classes should be better off, since they are working on material that the test actually assesses. But they don't do better. Aren't they better "prepped", since their class material is actually on the SAT? </p>
<p>Also, I think posters are being a bit disingenuous here, by pretending that classroom assignments are "prep" the way a $2000 course is. Many teachers never show a single SAT example in their classrooms, particularly in higher math classes. And remember, there are students who take multiple $2K courses, in efforts to up their scores. Let's think of the difference between those students, typically well off, who take expensive courses and might improve their scores 100 points, and those that take no courses and score well. Is there really no difference between said students? That's ridiculous.</p>
<p>And on the multiple IQ tests...the first IQ test given, assuming it was administered by a qualified professional, is absolutely valid. The other two, if given within the same year, are not valid, either in comparison to the first test, or to other tests administered to other students.</p>
<p>The benefits of repeat testing kicks in with students who don't have much, or any, experience with the SAT. Many students have already taken multiple practice tests, or practice sections, either on their own or in their high school classes before they step into the testing center. In those cases, repetition probably won't help much.</p>
<p>A kid who scores a 1510 on his first try with no prep doesn't have a significant advantage over a kid who, with 4 months of intensive prep and 20 practice tests under his belt, goes from a 1290 to a 1480. All the college sees is "1510" and "1480". There may very well be a difference in their intelligence, but only they will know.</p>
<p>Bingo, DP. And one of those kids is inherently brighter than the other. I suspect the colleges can figure this out, but maybe not, and maybe the other aspects of the application weigh in the the 1480 kid's favor. That's OK too.</p>
<p>^^^ Yes, you and I know, but the colleges don't
For all they know, the situations could have been reversed. The kid with the 1520 could have started out at 1310 and the kid with 1480 could have done it with no prep. No one will ever know.</p>
<p>Therein lies the fallacy- a college that would never consider the kid with a 1310 will take him with his "improved" 1520 and reject a kid with a 1350, first try/no prep.</p>
<p>As a homeschooler, I say keep the SAT. </p>
<p>BTW, I wonder what percentage of high school students nationwide go to "known" vs. "unknown" high schools?</p>
<p>Doubleplay, I think you're addressing a problem which is more theoretical than real. I understand that the test prep companies have to sell their services, and convincing people that they can turn a sow's ear into a silk purse is part of the pitch. But in my (admittedly limited) personal experience, I haven't seen evidence of that. The varying degree of test prep my three kids did not seem to alter their scores in any significant way. My one kid who scored significantly better than I expected did the least (virtually no) preparation for the test. And she outscored her friends who had taken months of expensive prepping by a wide margin. They all took it again two months later and the gap between my unprepped D and her prepped-to-the-max friends just got wider. So while a basic understanding of the test process helps, and I think simply taking the test a second time to eliminate confusion point loss will affect the final score, I'm not sure how much impact additional tests - practice and real - are likely to have.</p>
<p>I'm all for familiarity with the test. I do think it makes a difference for a lot of kids to have seen and worked on a bunch of test problems (which one can do for very little financial outlay...just buy the College Board book).</p>
<p>But it sure is true that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and that is what I have been saying all along. Some kids just start out as the SAT version of the silk purse, and some kids, despite courses and tutoring, never will become one.</p>
<p>^D has similar experience to your daughter. Her best friend took a prep class but did not do as well as her. He also took it twice but his scores did not improve much. However, this kid did much better in AP tests and SAT II tests than D.
I try not to read too much in these tests, I view them as necessary evils, do the best you can because some schools will weight the SAT 1 more than others but don't rely on it, there are other factors besides SAT scores.</p>
<p>atomom - about "known" vs "unknown" schools. I think if there is any history of students applying/going to a college from a particular high school it is "known" to that college. </p>
<p>My S goes to a small public HS that routinely sends a dozen or more kids to top colleges and they do very well there. The acceptance rate is much higher than other HS's in town with better local reputations (schools with higher soc/econ levels, less gangs). The GC at school says that it's because these colleges have had kids coming from the gifted program at this particular HS and they perform well in college. The school is no where near making those lists of top high schools in the US.</p>
<p>Allmusic,</p>
<p>You actually made an excellent argument for super scoring. Some students will peak in Math Junior year others in Senior year super scoring allows students to use the score that corresponds to the time period in which they are studying the corresponding material.</p>
<p>Actually you are right about almost everything in your first statement. However, if you were to purchase one of those IQ self-testing books and give yourself a series of IQ tests, you would find that although your score on later tests was higher that it tended to plateau roughly ten points above your original score. This pattern tends to hold with most people so while multiple test scores will not yield an accurate IQ, they do provide an accurate basis for comparing students who have all had the opportunity to take multiple tests. </p>
<p>Finally, there is very little evidence that expensive SAT prep courses produce better results than self-preparation.</p>
<p>I think there is far too much obsession over the advantages of prep courses. The same parents who moan about this unfair advantage will be first in line to pay for expensive athletic performance training, sports camps, music lessons, etc. I'm not vested in this issue. Our son never took a prep course. Just got the "real SATs" book and looked it over. Scored exceptionally well, mostly because of many years of being a voracious reader and a tuned-in student. I think many parents just have a really hard time coming to grips with their kids perhaps not scoring off the charts on the SAT. It's very unequivocal and hard for parents to deal with. But we can't make these types of "tests" disappear just to protect our kids, none of whom are perfect to begin with.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The same parents who moan about this unfair advantage will be first in line to pay for expensive athletic performance training, sports camps, music lessons, etc.
[/quote]
I don't think you can compare these things at all. Kids who love sports & music WANT to pursue those activities. It's usually something they beg for. SAT prep??? I think students only sit for those classes because they are bowing to marketing pressure & believe they will be left in the dust without it. Do any of them really WANT to be there? Personally, I don't believe an SAT class will prepare a student any better than self study. Perhaps undisciplined kids are sent to the class because it's the only way they'll open the book. (I might one day have to use the threat of a prep course if my kids are blowing off using a review book at home.) But kids can do it on their own, and some just rely on their past academic foundation & do very well. But a kid can't teach himself how to play the violin properly. And most families don't have the training equipment needed for learning how to tackle in football, or check in hockey, or any variety of sports fundamentals. The kids need coaching.</p>
<p>I'm 100% with mammall on this. My older daughter did the same thing as her son in that she never took a prep course and only "looked over" the "Real SATs" book very briefly. She took the SAT I three times and scored better each time she took it. She, too, was a voracious reader and a very conscientious student in all of her classes. </p>
<p>My second daughter never looked at a thing before she took the test (also three times). Her scores peaked on the second time and ended up being about an average of times one and two for her third time. She was not a voracious reader by any means, but she did take all of her h.s. classes very seriously and did extremely well in all of them.</p>
<p>We are from a very small town public h.s. Therefore, the SAT probably provides the best measure of how our school's kids can compete with kids from bigger and more prestigious high schools. Without their SAT scores, I doubt that my daughters' top class rankings and stellar GPAs would have meant anything to the university they are now attending. They had very little competition in h.s., but that seems to have not hurt them in the least.</p>
<p>I was always under the impression that one should not have to prep for the SAT at all. It is supposed to measure aptitude. Aptitude is not something that one can "cram for" and learn at a prep course, is it?</p>
<p>I think a great deal of time would be wasted reading question formats if a student were not familiar with the test's structure. I agree that one can't "cram" for the SAT, but I think doing some tests on your own, getting a feel for how quickly you have to move, or even uncovering a topic in geometry (for example) one had never learned would definitely boost one's scores. I don't see how a prep course would be a better way than self study to achieve this polishing & familiarity, though.</p>
<p>It's not better. The only thing the prep course does (besides charge $2K) is to force bratty kids to sit still and take tests, when they refuse to do them on their own. I hear that ALL the time, when I say that if kids want to study, just buy the $20 book. Nope, I hear. Little Joey or Susie <em>wont</em> do it on his/her own!</p>
<p>BTW, Curious, when I was talking about IQ tests, I was talking about the Wechsler series, the real McCoys, which can only be administered by a licensed psychologist. Those tests are protected and no portions are out on the internet or anywhere else for self study. The self-study kinds of IQ tests are not really worth the paper they are printed on.</p>
<p>There were some test strategies and approaches that my kids learned from reading online, that they felt helped them tremendously. I guess they wouldn't be considered part of the "bratty kid group", because it wasn't a 2K course, but I still consider what they did to be a form of prep.</p>
<p>I guess depending on your experiences, you believe whether prep or multiple takes help or not. If even 1 of 10 people who take a review course improve their scores, that's an awful lot of people who have had successful results. And if investing in a prep course or tutor will give a kid that little extra push into his dream school, or get him a scholarship, or get him into an honors program, it's worth it to him!</p>
<p>Add:
Maybe I've heard more success stories because of where I live. Here in Florida, if a kid can get his SAT up to a 1270, he gets free tuition to instate schools. That's a savings of about 5K per year. MANY parents are more than willing to shell out the 2K in hopes of getting those scores up. It's a no-brainer investment, especially if your kid is only about 100 points or so away.</p>
<p>I think that a 100 point boost - especially in the 1200 point range - is probably about what the prep courses can realistically expect to provide. The thing is, an extra 100 points - especially in that range - isn't likely to make a significant difference in college acceptances for many people. Outside of the rigid scholarship formula of the type you describe, I don't think prep courses have much of a real world impact. I seriously doubt that many students are getting into top-30 schools as a result of taking a $2K prep course that they would not have gotten accepted to anyway.</p>
<p>And I would say that I don't know a single kid with very, very high scores who took at $2K test prep course, or any course at all.</p>
<p>100 point gains are surely possible, but I have seen kids whose parents have shelled out gigantic money in test prep fees and their kids have gone up from a 560-580 in one section, maybe another 30 points in another...that kind of thing, perhaps adding up to 100 points altogether. </p>
<p>From the college's perspective, however, is the difference between a 560-580 any difference at all? I don't think so. In the circumstances that DP describes, where scholarships are on the line, perhaps those 100 points make a difference.</p>
<p>I don't think it's very helpful for those whose kids have scored highly without any prep on their first tries- to even give advise on this topic. I'm not sure what the underlying motivation is for telling everyone more than once that one's son or daughter had a perfect score. What purpose does it serve? How is it benefiting those who are reading this to read repeatedly that "so-and-so scored a perfect 800 without prep, so obviously prep doesn't help?" </p>
<p>It seems sort of like the rich guy discouraging the poor guy from trying to better himself, because he will probably fail anyway. Or the skinny woman telling the fat woman that dieting probably won't help, so don't bother. Is it guaranteed that you'll get rich or lose weight? No, but it's CERTAIN you won't if you don't try.</p>
<p>So for everyone else out there who are listening (knocking on monitor- Hello??), my son went from a 690 to a 790 after brushing up his SAT strategies. He's not alone- it can be done! And you can do this by using the xiggi method, or using prep books, or using an online class, or private tutor, or class. I guess I'm in the minority on this thread, but I do not believe I'm in the minority in general.</p>
<p>I'm trying to help people. I don't know how it's helpful to just brag on your kid and tell everyone else they'll never do as well. Please tell me, do you have any support or advice for students who want to improve their scores, or do you just want to kick them down and blow your own horn?</p>